Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

    • To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:50:11 -0700
    • Cc: "apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGOGwd62QCmix6nm34=X+kPH=wRb2AXL8A9WsAg7ZU1ZWA@mail.gmail.com>
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
    • List-help: <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • References: <CF48EE5A.85B79%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <365C33CF-B77B-40CA-88B5-53746928444D@apnic.net> <5323ECC9.3030609@cis-india.org> <CF4CC73D.85D7D%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <201403191612.GIE89288.BNFN@nic.ad.jp> <CF50E9B7.86A67%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <532E33C6.9030508@nic.ad.jp> <CAPUFQLqsrgn2G3Oub9d-moYeFPwTioD7M_9woF7G6grsTzby5g@mail.gmail.com> <CF5468F5.8CAA%tony@apnic.net> <CF55BF7B.875A6%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <5330F8F0.3050107@nic.ad.jp> <CF573DC0.8791E%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <CAEUfUGOGwd62QCmix6nm34=X+kPH=wRb2AXL8A9WsAg7ZU1ZWA@mail.gmail.com>
    • Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
      • Skeeve, 

        I have no intension to disturb and/or criticize anybody in here and I am discussing this topic very seriously
        in a way which comply with APNIC by-laws and APNIC Talk charter as shown in

        Even though that, you are calling Andy and me as "noise".
        Which kind of authority you have as you can call us as "noise"?

        On 14/03/26 3:36, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com> wrote:
        (snip)

        Right now you are making a lot of noise about some things happening that you disagree with... and that is ok.  I support you in your right to do so.  But when you criticise the authority of the EC that the community gave them, you are not respecting the community or the election process that has been held.

        Again, I'm not criticizing anybody in here, I trust DG and current EC members,
        so I'm discussing and asking. You totally misunderstand my point and intension.

        Rgs,
        Masato Yamanishi




        ...Skeeve

        Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
        The Experts Who The Experts Call
        Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering


        On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
        Maemura-san, EC members and Paul,



        On 14/03/24 20:33, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:

        >Dear Masato,
        >
        >Let me clarify.
        >
        >I am sure you can find the deadline of this Thursday corresponds to the
        >last day of ICANN49 meeting in Singapore.
        >This deadline is for ICANN to get inputs to develop an *initial* draft of
        >the process to consider the new scheme.
        >The new scheme is the successor of the current one with USG DoC NTIA's
        >contracts with ICANN and Verisign for IANA function.
        >
        >I can say it is during "the process to set-up the process".
        >
        >The document which you provided with the link has the rough timeline of
        >the process, as well as their intention for you to clearly understand.

        Actually, I have already been aware that this comment period is for
        proposed schedule and process personally
        when I read a e-mail from Mr. John Curran.
        However, nobody from APNIC Secretariat nor EC have informed it to APNIC
        community,
        so I wrote "However, I have not yet understood what we need to give a
        feedback for."

        Then, my previous comment, which is

        > My first comment for this is "It's too urgent. ICANN should not push
        >other internet orgs to do anything."


        is actually a comment exactly for proposed process and schedule.

        Since the deadline for this proposed schedule is too short, it sounds like
        other internet bodies need to follow proposed schedule by ICANN. (Of
        course, I know that ICANN claim they are just proposing, but at least I
        felt it was forced.)
        Also, this comment period is set during ICANN meeting, so while ICANN
        community can meet and discuss it physically, other internet bodies should
        discuss it electronically. I think that is unreasonably unfair schedule.

        The fact, that EC nor the Secretariat have not yet been able to announce
        this proposed process and comment period officially while the comment
        period is almost ending, is very good evidence showing this comment period
        is too short and doesn't work for APNIC.

        EC members>
        I believe you are preparing some input as APNIC community for this
        proposed process,
        I would like to ask you claiming that each internet bodies should have
        more flexibility during this process, in particular time constrain, and
        ICANN should respect such flexibility of each internet bodies.


        >
        >There is a big landmark (or milestone?) of September 30, 2015, which is
        >the expiry date of the current IANA function contract, and it would be
        >handsome to complete to develop the new scheme. But Fadi Chehade
        >mentioned in the concerned session on Monday that the expiry date is not
        >a deadline for them(and us) to do it.
        >
        >I understand if you feel it vague what to input, as I saw in the session
        >that the floor mic got open to make the input for the *process*, but many
        >input from the floor were for the shape itself rather than the process of
        >the consideration.

        In my understanding, that confusion was caused by what ICANN had done in
        past, I don't have any feeling for that.

        Rgs,
        Masato Yamanishi



        >
        >
        >Best,
        >Akinori
        >
        >
        >
        >(2014/03/25 3:11), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
        >> All,
        >>
        >> John Curran, ARIN CEO, just shared next step on arin-ppml mailing list,
        >> and let me share it as I could not find better source.
        >> (Sorry, I don't have any intension to quote it)
        >>
        >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-March/028006.html
        >>
        >> And, we need to reply feedback before "Mar 27th, 2014" which means this
        >>THURSDAY!!
        >> However, I have not yet understood what we need to give a feedback for.
        >> Does somebody know it?
        >>
        >>
        >>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-
        >>14mar14-en.pdf
        >>
        >> My first comment for this is "It's too urgent. ICANN should not push
        >>other internet orgs to do anything."
        >>
        >> Rgs,
        >> Masato Yamanishi
        >>
        >>
        >> On 14/03/22 20:16, "Tony Smith" <tony at apnic dot net
        >><mailto:tony at apnic dot net>> wrote:
        >>
        >>     Hi Naresh
        >>
        >>     Sorry, to answer your earlier question about "plans" - the plan is
        >>something that APNIC, our community, and all interested Internet users
        >>worldwide have been prompted to contribute to as per the NTIA
        >>announcement (which asked ICANN to facilitate).
        >>
        >>     Paul's email from Friday (available here:
        >>http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/iana-globalization-consultati
        >>on-process) explained the next steps.
        >>
        >>     Everyone - including the Secretariat! - is hoping to find out more
        >>at ICANN 49 in Singapore. We hope there will be discussion at the
        >>meeting on how this process is going to work and the community will have
        >>some input into the mechanics of the consultation process. ICANN changed
        >>the program just today with an updated time for its discussion session -
        >>it is now at 10.30am SG time on Monday:
        >>http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-globalization-advisory
        >>
        >>     As Paul's email said, the APNIC EC is currently considering the
        >>best ways to facilitate discussions and capture input from the Asia
        >>Pacific community. It would be great to hear your and other Members'
        >>views on how the APNIC community can contribute to this process.
        >>
        >>     Kind regards
        >>     Tony
        >>
        >>     From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com
        >><mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>>
        >>     Date: Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:19 am
        >>     To: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp <mailto:maem at nic dot ad dot jp>>
        >>     Cc: "apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >><mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>" <apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >><mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>>
        >>     Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
        >>
        >>     Maemura, hi
        >>
        >>     Masato; Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor
        >>members as
        >>     > there was not enough time?
        >>     > Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says;
        >>     Maemura; "I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to
        >>proceed these issues and signed them under the EC's authorization."
        >>
        >>     Is it part of any Munute of Meeting or mails and if in public
        >>domain?
        >>
        >>     Transparency wud help more. I am still waiting for the plans if
        >>any, I had asked for in this thread mails
        >>
        >>     Regards & best wishes
        >>
        >>     Naresh Ajwani
        >>
        >>     On 23 Mar 2014 06:37, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp
        >><mailto:maem at nic dot ad dot jp>> wrote:
        >>
        >>         Masato,
        >>
        >>
        >>         (2014/03/21 11:18), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
        >>         > Maemura-san and EC members,
        >>         >
        >>         > Thank you for sharing EC's view.
        >>         > Let me quote your statement in slightly different order to
        >>make my comment.
        >>         >
        >>         >> Technically speaking on the basis of our governing
        >>provisions,
        >>         >> the Executive Council has function to act on behalf of the
        >>Members
        >>         >> in the interval between AGMs, and to manage the activities,
        >>functions
        >>         >> and affairs of APNIC.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> More practically, the EC represents the Membership to manage
        >>APNIC's
        >>         >> activity,
        >>         >> and need to comply the will of the Membership, sometimes
        >>with the
        >>         >> broader community.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> We have the power to authorise the activity by DG and
        >>Secretariat for
        >>         >> the Membership,
        >>         >> but need to synchronise our thought on the authorization
        >>with the
        >>         >> Membership.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> That is why we set a timeslot to discuss the Internet
        >>Governance issue
        >>         >> in the AMM this time,
        >>         >> after we announced our support for Montevideo Statement in
        >>January.
        >>         >
        >>         > It complies with APNIC by-laws 30, so I don't see any problem
        >>from
        >>         > procedure perspective.
        >>         Yes, as you see the wording in my message was in accordance
        >>with it.
        >>
        >>         > BUT,
        >>         >
        >>         >> Montevideo Statement was crafted among the I* CEOs in the
        >>situation, as
        >>         >> Tony has already told,
        >>         >> with very limited time allowance with very quick moves at
        >>that time,
        >>         >> and so was the I*'s reaction to NTIA statement.
        >>         >
        >>         >
        >>         > Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor
        >>members as
        >>         > there was not enough time?
        >>         > Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says;
        >>         I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to proceed
        >>these issues and signed them under the EC's authorization.
        >>
        >>         Akinori
        >>         > 54. The main functions of the Director General are:
        >>         > a. to act as the chief executive officer of APNIC and the
        >>corporation;
        >>         > b. to have, subject to the provisions of these by-laws and to
        >>the
        >>         > direction of the Executive Council, the responsibility for
        >>the general
        >>         > management and control of the activities, functions and
        >>affairs of APNIC
        >>         > and the corporation and shall perform all duties and have all
        >>powers which
        >>         > are commonly incident to the office of chief executive or
        >>which are
        >>         > delegated by the Executive Council;
        >>         > c. to execute all contracts, agreements and other instruments
        >>of the
        >>         > corporation which are authorised including affixing the Seal
        >>of the
        >>         > corporation;
        >>         > d. to appoint and have general supervision and direction of
        >>all of the
        >>         > other staff and agents of APNIC and the corporation,
        >>including but not
        >>         > limited to bookkeeping, accounting and treasury functions on
        >>behalf of the
        >>         > Treasurer;
        >>         > e. to implement strategic policies, prepare plans for APNIC,
        >>and shall
        >>         > coordinate its activities, functions and affairs;
        >>         > f. to report to the Executive Council and to put forward
        >>resolutions for
        >>         > the consideration of the Executive Council;
        >>         > g. to take all the actions required to ensure the economic
        >>use of
        >>         > APNIC's resources and shall be responsible to the Executive
        >>Council for
        >>         > all the administrative and financial aspects of APNIC's
        >>activities;
        >>         > h. to act as the legal representative of APNIC and the
        >>corporation;
        >>         > i. to act as an ex-officio member of the Executive Council.
        >>         >
        >>         >
        >>         > Rgs,
        >>         > Masato Yamanishi
        >>         >
        >>         >
        >>         > On 14/03/19 0:12, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp
        >><mailto:maem at nic dot ad dot jp>> wrote:
        >>         >
        >>         >> Dear Masato, Pranesh and everyone,
        >>         >>
        >>         >> I know this is very late response for your request for the
        >>EC to clarify.
        >>         >> Apologies.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> At Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:41:35 -0700
        >>         >> In message <CF4CC73D.85D7D%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com
        >><mailto:CF4CC73D.85D7D%25myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>>
        >>         >> "Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress"
        >>         >> "Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com
        >><mailto:myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>>" wrote:
        >>         >>
        >>         >> | Pranesh and All,
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> | While I'm not new to APNIC, I have same question/concern.
        >>         >> | Can EC clarify it?
        >>         >> |
        >>         >>
        >>         >> Montevideo Statement was crafted among the I* CEOs in the
        >>situation, as
        >>         >> Tony has already told, with very limited time allowance with
        >>very quick
        >>         >> moves at that time, and so was the I*'s reaction to NTIA
        >>statement.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> Technically speaking on the basis of our governing
        >>provisions, the
        >>         >> Executive Council has function to act on behalf of the
        >>Members in the
        >>         >> interval between AGMs, and to manage the activities,
        >>functions and
        >>         >> affairs of APNIC.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> More practically, the EC represents the Membership to manage
        >>APNIC's
        >>         >> activity, and need to comply the will of the Membership,
        >>sometimes with
        >>         >> the broader community.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> We have the power to authorise the activity by DG and
        >>Secretariat for the
        >>         >> Membership, but need to synchronise our thought on the
        >>authorization with
        >>         >> the Membership.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> That is why we set a timeslot to discuss the Internet
        >>Governance issue in
        >>         >> the AMM this time, after we announced our support for
        >>Montevideo
        >>         >> Statement in January.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> It was great to see very active discussion there, and that
        >>it triggered
        >>         >> the continued discussion on line.
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >> As Masato points out, now Paul is more engaged in the
        >>activity of
        >>         >> coordination among our fellow organizations and ITU arena,
        >>which is based
        >>         >> on the EC's authorization. We authorize becuase we think it
        >>needed.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> I understand it looks like politics game with little thing,
        >>if not
        >>         >> nothing, to do with Members' own business.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> However from the viewpoint of a company whose business is
        >>serving
        >>         >> community with Internet Resource, one of which is APNIC, it
        >>is really
        >>         >> important to address the risk of unwanted non-viable
        >>arrangement and to
        >>         >> have people with other stakes understand our position.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> Moreover, as already mentioned, the forthcoming couple of
        >>years are quite
        >>         >> crucial stage for us to keep our healthy business
        >>environment.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> That's why we authorize these activities by Secretariat, and
        >>what we need
        >>         >> to have you understand.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> As we have many things to come, Director General and the EC
        >>will have
        >>         >> more communication each other to consider these actions,
        >>than we have
        >>         >> already been doing.
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >> I know, through my own business, that how Internet
        >>Governance issues are
        >>         >> difficult for people (e.g. of tech community) to realize, I
        >>am still on
        >>         >> the way to find how I can couple the issue we confront
        >>adequately with
        >>         >> community's interest.
        >>         >>
        >>         >> The EC needs to have the Membership's support with
        >>well-informed consent,
        >>         >> and of course we need to change our thought just in case we
        >>found it was
        >>         >> not of the Membership and community, and I hope the current
        >>discussion
        >>         >> will valuable for the purpose.
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >> Sincerely,
        >>         >>
        >>         >> MAEMURA Akinori, my own hat on, but I am sure the EC well
        >>sheres these
        >>         >> points
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >>
        >>         >> | Rgs,
        >>         >> | Masato Yamanishi
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> | On 14/03/14 23:01, "Pranesh Prakash"
        >><pranesh at cis-india dot org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india dot org>> wrote:
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> | >Tony Smith [2014-03-14 21:42]:
        >>         >> | >> As I'm sure you appreciate, the news from the US has
        >>just arrived
        >>         >> this
        >>         >> | >>morning and a lot of the details are still coming to
        >>light. We're
        >>         >> | >>planning to prepare something that explains what this
        >>development
        >>         >> means
        >>         >> | >>in more detail when more information is confirmed.
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> | >I'm sorry, but I'm new to APNIC's lists.
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> | >Was there any consultation within APNIC before APNIC's
        >>leader's name
        >>         >> was
        >>         >> | >added to this statement? Could you also point me towards
        >>the community
        >>         >> | >consultation / mailing list discussions that took place
        >>before the
        >>         >> | >Montevideo Declaration was signed as something APNIC
        >>endorsed?
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> | >> But for now, we wanted to alert everyone to this news
        >>and the fact
        >>         >> | >>consultation will begin in our region in Singapore.
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> | >Could you outline the intra-APNIC consultations (i.e.,
        >>not the ICANN
        >>         >> | >consultations about which ICANN's published a document)
        >>that will take
        >>         >> | >place with regard to this? Which mailing list will these
        >>discussions
        >>         >> be
        >>         >> | >directed towards?
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> | >--
        >>         >> | >Pranesh Prakash
        >>         >> | >Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
        >>         >> | >T: +91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W:
        >>http://cis-india.org
        >>         >> | >-------------------
        >>         >> | >Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project,
        >>Yale Law
        >>         >> School
        >>         >> | >M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | W:
        >>http://yaleisp.org
        >>         >> | >PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter:
        >>https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash <https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash>
        >>         >> | >
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> |
        >>         >> | _______________________________________________
        >>         >> | apnic-talk mailing list
        >>         >> | apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >><mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
        >>         >> | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >>         >> |
        >>         >
        >>
        >>         _______________________________________________
        >>         apnic-talk mailing list
        >>         apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
        >>         http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >>
        >>     _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing
        >>list apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
        >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >>
        >


        _______________________________________________
        apnic-talk mailing list
        apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk